JUDGMENT : Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Shri B.D. Upadhyay, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Naveen Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an aspirant to the post of Horticulture Development Branch Category II pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.03.2011, has prayed for issue the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the selection of private respondents on the post of Horticulture Development Branch Category – II being in breach of the Rules and the law in as much as, as per Law they were not qualified to even appeared in the main examination. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to declare the petitioner successful / selected on the post of Horticulture Development Branch Category – II in as much as after removal the private respondents from the impugned result, the petitioner is next below candidate in the merit list. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Commission to declare the petitioner successful for appointment on the post of Deputy Principal / Senior Lecturer etc. on the basis of the total marks obtained by him which is higher than the last cut off marks for the last selected scheduled caste category candidate.” 3. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 11.03.2011 by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission” for brevity) whereby total 241 different posts including 6 posts of Horticulture Development Branch Category – II were advertised. The last date of submission of application pursuant to the said advertisement was 11.04.2011. The petitioner applied to the post of Horticulture Development Branch Category – II. On 08.01.2012, the Commission conducted a preliminary examination and thereafter, on 21.07.2012 result of the preliminary examination was declared by the Commission. The selection process consisted of 3 stages of examinations namely preliminary examination, main written examination and viva voce / interview test. In the category of Horticulture Development Branch Category II for 6 vacant posts 90 candidates were declared successful for appearing in the main examination in ratio of 1:15. 4. The selection process consisted of 3 stages of examinations namely preliminary examination, main written examination and viva voce / interview test. In the category of Horticulture Development Branch Category II for 6 vacant posts 90 candidates were declared successful for appearing in the main examination in ratio of 1:15. 4. Pursuant to the preliminary examination result so declared by the Commission, it has also issued cut off marks in respect of Uttarakhand Combined State Civil / Senior Subordinate Examination, 2010 wherein the post, in question, i.e. Horticulture Development Branch Category II, was also mentioned. At that juncture, raising the grievances against the result of the preliminary examination, some of the candidates made representation to the Commission that their names are missing in preliminary examination result though they have secured more than the cut off marks issued by the Commission. They pleaded that their names may also be included in the result of preliminary examination result. 5. After considering the representation received from some of the candidates, a special meeting was convened by the Commission on 12.10.2021 wherein a decision was taken by the Commission that disciplinary action shall be taken against concerned officers and employees due to which this situation has arisen. Thereafter, again on 26.10.2012, a special meeting was convened by the Commission with regard to amendment in preliminary examination result of Combined State Civil / Senior Subordinate Examination 2010 and a discussion was held with regard to proposal nos. 21 and 31 and thereafter, a unanimous decision was taken that the candidates, who fall within the cut off marks issued by the Commission, will be declared successful in the preliminary examination. A copy of such a decision of the meeting has been annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the written arguments. Pursuant to such decision taken by the Commission, on 26.10.02012 i.e. on the same date the Commission issued amended preliminary examination result, which form part of the writ petition (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). Candidates who were having more than cut off marks in the merit issued by the Commission was declared successful for appearing in the main examination. Hence, instead of 90 candidates, 233 candidates were declared successful and eligible for appearing in the main written examination. 6. Candidates who were having more than cut off marks in the merit issued by the Commission was declared successful for appearing in the main examination. Hence, instead of 90 candidates, 233 candidates were declared successful and eligible for appearing in the main written examination. 6. Keeping in view of the said facts and principle of parity, for vacant post of Horticulture Development Branch Category II, total 233 candidates were declared successful and eligible for appearing in the main examination instead of 90 candidates because the number of candidates, above in the merit of the candidates declared successful in the original preliminary result, were included in the amended preliminary result. Such a decision was taken keeping in view the interest of justice. Pursuant to the amended preliminary examination result, the main examination was conducted by the Commission and it is undisputed that the petitioner has also participated in the main written examination and the result of the main written examination was declared on 02.02.2014 and interview was held on 01.03.2014. The petitioner could not succeed in main written examination, therefore, filed the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has not challenged the amended result of the preliminary examination. It is further apparent from the pleadings that petitioner’s claim with regard to the Deputy Principal is concerned, the petitioner was found eligible for appearing in the main examination for the post having special educational eligibility and general educational eligibility as a candidate of sub-category “skilled sportsman of SC category”. Since his certificate skilled sportsman was found to be improper, he was not found eligible for the post of Deputy Principal having special educational eligibility and general educational eligibility as a candidate of sub category skilled sportsman of SC category, i.e., post of Deputy Principal and as such under the SC category candidate though the last selected candidate secured less marks was selected, as it is evident from the record that petitioner was not having proper skilled sportsman certificate, therefore, petitioner’s case was not considered for the post of Deputy Principal. 8. 8. The Commission has further put forth it case that so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to Horticulture Development Branch Category – II is concerned, petitioner was eligible for appearing in the main written examination under SC category only but he was not found eligible for the post of Deputy Principal, as he was not having proper skilled sportsman certificate. Thus, at present the question that remains to be decided is - whether the petitioner, who participated in the selection procedure and has not challenged the decision taken by the Commission for issuing amended eligibility list for the main written examination, can be allowed to challenge the selection process on the ground that the Commission has adopted erroneous approach by increasing the number of eligible candidates for the main written examination from 90 to 233. 9. Respondent firstly objected to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the fact that petitioner did not challenge the amended result and after being unsuccessful, he has challenged the same. This issue is no more res integra. It has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments that after participation in the selection process, the selection process cannot be challenged by a candidate. We take note of a few judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. In the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the Hon Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 has held as under: “09. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. ……………....xxxx" 10. In Pradeep Kumar Rai and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493 in para 17 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted. (See Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. and K.H. Siraz v. High Court of Kerala).” 11. In the case of D. Sarojakumari Versus R. Helen Thilakom and others (2017) 9 SCC 478 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of different judgments pronounced by it viz. Madan Lal Vs. (See Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. and K.H. Siraz v. High Court of Kerala).” 11. In the case of D. Sarojakumari Versus R. Helen Thilakom and others (2017) 9 SCC 478 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of different judgments pronounced by it viz. Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 ; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 and Ramesh Chandra Shah Vs. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309 and approved the proposition that having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the candidate had waived his rights to question the advertisement. 12. That being the settled principle of law, we find the petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and then result of the preliminary examination was declared; then grievance raised by some candidates came to fore of the Commission; the Commission took two decisions – first, to initiate enquiry against the concerned officers and employees and second - to issue amended result in the interest of justice to revise the list of eligible candidates passed in preliminary examination. Petitioner did not challenge that order. 13. All the above-noted judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case. Moreover, in another identical matter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 373 of 2014 (Dr. Kuldeep Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others) has already dismissed the petition on 10.09.2018 filed by another aspirant. 14. The contention raised by the petitioner is that if amended result had not been published, then private respondents would not take the main written examination, which would made them eligible for being called for the interview. 15. Firstly in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai (supra), the question of fixing the ratio was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At paragraph 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no rule as to the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of the candidates for being called for interview; although it may be a rule of prudence. At paragraph 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no rule as to the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of the candidates for being called for interview; although it may be a rule of prudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has found in Mohinder Sain Garg Versus State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 662 , as also in Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 that although it may be improper for the Selection Committee to call such large number of candidates for interview but selection cannot be vitiated merely on that ground, if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or oblique motive. In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave one more reason not to accept this argument which squarely applies to this case as well; the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the respondents stood no chance of being called for interview if candidates up to three times the number of posts were called for the interview. 16. Applying this principle in this case, we find that it is not the case of the petitioner that the action of Commission in revising the list of selected candidate and making 233 candidates eligible to sit in main examination, instead of 90, is tainted by mala fide, or any oblique motive. On the contrary, it is apparent from the pleadings that because of some officials’ lacuna, some candidates who had secured more marks than cut off marks could not be included in the preliminary examination result. However, when the issue came to fore of the Commission, the Commission convened a meeting and took two important decisions first to initiate disciplinary action against the erring officials and second to include those who came in the merit secured more than cut off marks, it was done in ex debito justitiae and extend the principle of parity to those candidates who had filed representation ventilating their grievances. 17. This Court finds that the action of Commission was just and proper, in the sense it could not have denied a chance of sitting in the main examination to those candidates who had secured more marks than cut off marks to be included in the merit list. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit the writ petition. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in view of the facts and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases. No order as to costs.